We always watch buildings demolished but what does a natural collapse looks like?

You, two are by all means way out of line with comments like that and are serving no useful purpose to the debate at hand.

Pootie, you put forth good points but regardless of intelligent theory's bad spelling, HE puts forth some really good points in my opinion and none from what I can see are very far fetched.

20 cubic metres of kerosene is enough to put more than 45000 pounds of thrust out of a turbine engine and propel a 747 through flight, WHY couldn't it burn hot enough to melt through sub grade steel?


Anyway, Intelligent theory I'm siding with you on this one cause I get your drift.

the only thing that does make me wonder whether or not there were explosives within the building is that ceasation of the momentum horizontally.

Mind you, under the right circumstances it may have been due to the acceleration downwards.

Either way, I still believe the planes were responsible for the most part in the collapse.


And as to further mine and intelligent theory's idea of how the building collapsed under it's own weight I'm going to begin a project to build a model with as close to the same physical properties as possible to the incident.

This way I can either illustrate what I'm trying to point out or prove myself wrong. It's gonna be fun to build a miniature model though.


I think we should all take a moment to reflect on our use of inflection to eachother within this thread though. Rudeness, arrogance, flagrant ignorance and such forth should be put aside and we should cooperate intelligently to try to put an end to this debate and respect all of those poor souls that died on sept 11th.

After all, WE ARE DISCUSSING AND DEBATING A TRAGEDY, NOT A SCHOOL PROJECT OR SIMPLE DEBATE HERE!!!!!

Funny, none of them turned to powder as they collapsed, nor did they explode upward & outward as with WTC 1 & 2.

Nor did any of them fall in one piece as in the case of WTC7.

I think with all the discussion over time about the destruction of the world trade buildings we have all lost touch a little with reality.

Perhaps disinfo agents have contributed to this situation but im sure most if not all of us will recall what we felt when we first saw images of the towers' collapse. I mean it just wasnt real. There was something that told us, perhaps gut instinct, that something just wasnt right. Alarm bells went off & told us 'this collapse wasnt just the reult of a couple of planes and a few fires'. TV reporters on 9/11 verbally stated what many of us felt - 'you have to get to the underlying structure to bring buildings such as these down' was one comment. And how true that is. 'This looks like controlled demolition' was another comment. Again, yes it did, and his observation still rings true no matter how much 'spin' is placed on how a few kerosene fires could have done such damage. 'There are or were bombs in the buildings' was a remark made by many firefighters that day. Yes there were. They werent imagining things. 'I saw flashes of light ring the building, accompanied by crackling or popping noises as in controlled demolition. I asked my partner if he saw & heard the same thing & he said yes he did but thought he was imagining things' said another firefighter. Yes you did hear & see the same thing. You both didnt imagine the same thing. One can only conclude they were explosives you were seeing & hearing.

We need to get back to basics. We need to concentrate on fact & evidence & not get involved in mindless discussion that claims, for example, fuel must have poured down the shafts & exploded in the basement. Firstly, fuel when ignited burns as one. It explodes. Fire doesnt burn part of the fuel then wait for the rest of it to pour down elevator shafts to ignite & explode again. So why do we then go on to argue that fuel couldnt have poured down the shafts as they were hermetically sealed? I mean we have dismissed the claim explosions in the basement were due to fuel from the planes by applying common-sense & the laws of combustion, yet we then go on to explain why fuel couldnt have poured down the shafts? I mean how can fuel pour down a shaft if its on fire?? All we are doing when we entertain such claims, once we have answered them, is giving credence to claim the fuel didnt ignite in the first place? Does anyone get my logic here? To me its pretty simple, yet we get 'intellectuals' providing elaborate diagrams showing how the towers shafts were hermetically sealed as proof the fuel couldnt have poured down the shafts. I mean what fuel?? Fuel cant pour down a shaft once its ignited! And so because we entertain such nonsense we then get disinfo agents producing diagrams showing how in 1981 a special shaft was created in the building that explains this scenario & on the discussion goes. And we get side-tracked.

We need to get back to basics. We need to stop entertaining such silly ideas as the one I mention above & we need to get focused. We need to stop giving people place that entertain such nonsense. If they dont accept the fire ignited the fuel, as in this example, which then throws their claim out the window, we need to cease discussion with them. They are either disinfo agents or just plain ignorant & refuse to accept the truth.

I don't know about you but if fuel cannot pour well on fire, how does a flamethrower work.

Anyway, In my assumptions I never so much as stated the fuel poured down the elevator shafts.

Molten metal very well could have though!
Which, YES, there was sufficient heat on the impacted floor to melt steel and cause it to flow wherever it found the path of least resistance.

Even a small amount of molten steel when combined with aluminum(prevalent are both materials in the towers), creates the very useful catalyst of thermite.

Thermite even in a tablespoon amount can burn through the hood of your car the engine block and a small amount will keep burning into the ground for a short time.

Still, My model is still being drawn up. I have one small design problem however.

If I create a model of either tower 1 or 2, I can't quite figure out which materials would appropriatly represent the materials within the towers. Not to mention the sheer difference in weight.
Also, I have been trying to figure out what exactly happened with the jet fuel and where it went. The air ducts so far are the most feasible answer.

Anyway, I have a question for you nonchalant.......?

Why, when I rewatched the tower collapse tonight did I not see any preliminary flashes from the "explosions" you speak of.
I watched at least twenty different controlled demolitions tonight of skyscrapers including a magnificent display by the chinese of 16 buildings at the same time. In every single demolition I watched I could see and hear explosions in rapid succesion.

However with the towers the same is not visible!
My personal belief is that if there were explosive devices within the building you would most definatly see and hear them on the videos.

Originally posted by Magickesists
Molten metal very well could have though!
Which, YES, there was sufficient heat on the impacted floor to melt steel and cause it to flow wherever it found the path of least resistance.

No it wasn't hot enough to melt steel, even NIST doesn't make that ridiculous claim. Go look up the melting point of contruction steel, and the NISTS report of what the temps reached in the towers.

Even a small amount of molten steel when combined with aluminum(prevalent are both materials in the towers), creates the very useful catalyst of thermite.

No it doesn't. Thermite is a mixture of aluminum POWDER, and Iron Oxide. Just throwing things together does not create a reaction. If I threw all the ingredient for a cake in a pan, it's not going to suddenly turn into a cake.

Thermite even in a tablespoon amount can burn through the hood of your car the engine block and a small amount will keep burning into the ground for a short time.

True, but your other untrue comments make this point mute I believe.

[edit on 8/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Magickesists
WHY couldn't it burn hot enough to melt through sub grade steel?

Why is it now sub-grade steel?

Either way, I still believe the planes were responsible for the most part in the collapse.

I also believe they played their part.

And as to further mine and intelligent theory's idea of how the building collapsed under it's own weight I'm going to begin a project to build a model with as close to the same physical properties as possible to the incident.

This way I can either illustrate what I'm trying to point out or prove myself wrong. It's gonna be fun to build a miniature model though.

These are good intentions but will not not give you what you are looking for. Actually it will give you the opposite. Scaling down steel will not be the same. The moment of inertia doesn't scale properly. Also, you have to think about centroids where the inertia will act. It isn't a linear scale and will give you faulty results. Computer models are the only way to analyse unless you build a complete tower. That's why NIST built exact models for the floor trusses that they couldn't get to fail.

Originally posted by Magickesists
The whole situation of the two towers collapse was COMPLEX.
As an advocate of knowledge I will do my best to try to enlighten you as to what I meant.

One viewpoint that I was taking is that the engineers building a 110 storey building in downtown manhatten may have built in a contingency plan in the case of structural failure. Sensors or sometype of system designed to sense when the building was going to fall could have set off controlled explosives to collapse all the pillars so that the building would fall with minimal sideways momentum and more straight down momentum.

This idea makes even the most outrageous theories I've heard look tame. A building designed to collapse rather than to resist collapse? In what bizarro world do you awake in the morning? If a building is so inherently dangerous to build, why you just load it up with explosives to solve the problem! I mean it's not like you could just not build such a dangerous building after all. How thoughtful of the designers to save any would be terrorists so much time and trouble by thinking ahead.

Anok,
I have you a question. What happens to any metal when it's exposed to fire. IT OXIDIZES. aluminum oxide and iron oxide make thermite! All that was needed was the temperature to melt the steel.

If as you claim ( And NISTS) the temerature was not sufficient to oxidize either metal or liquify either metal then i stand corrected. ALAS we can't really know for sure. Unless you or someone else somehow recovered a blackbox for the structural stresses and temeratures that took place. If you did i bet there are some people really interested in that lol.

Anyway, the model idea. I kinda came to the conclusions i wouldn't get the same results today after building several models. I got one to collapse like an implosion however I had to tweak a few things and I don't think they were the same scircumstances.


Griff

I thought it was subgrade steel to begin with within the towers for the most part anyways due to the size of the towers and the cost of pure materials or top grade would be riciculous.

Resistor
Well, as a matter of fact it's not that far fetched. Even though you don't see explosions as i know i stated and leads me to believe there were no explosives embedded in the design it is actually a good idea for such tall buildings.

If you had say a 200 storey skyscraper with each floor on average making a 15 to 20 foot tall segment how many feet tall would that be?
Tell me if that building was about to fall sideways the idea wouldn't sound so outrageous then would it. especially if you lived or worked nearby!

Also when you consider the more advanced systems of nasa and triple redundancy and such the idea makes sense as a last ditch effort if everything else is failing wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Magickesists
IT OXIDIZES. aluminum oxide and iron oxide make thermite! All that was needed was the temperature to melt the steel.

Bull#.

If as you claim ( And NISTS) the temerature was not sufficient to oxidize either metal or liquify either metal then i stand corrected.

Start standing.

Why don't you guys get informed before you come here making wild claims you haven't even checked out yourself. What's the freakin point, other than wasting everyones time?